MCAT Textbooks / MCAT CARS Review 2022-2023 / Ch 9 of 12

📖 Question Types I: Foundations of Comprehension Questions

13,012 words · 1 figures · ≈57 min read · MCAT CARS Review 2022-2023

Chapter 9: Question Types I: Foundations of Comprehension Questions

Chapter 9

Chapter 9. Question Types I: Foundations of Comprehension Questions

Chapter 9: Question Types I: Foundations of Comprehension Questions

Chapter 9: Question Types I: Foundations of Comprehension Questions

Chapter 9

Chapter 9, Question Types I: Foundations of Comprehension Questions

In This Chapter

9.1Main Idea Questions

Sample Question Stems

Strategy

Main Idea Questions—Applied Example

9.2Detail Questions

Sample Question Stems

Strategy

Detail Questions—Applied Example

9.3Inference Questions

Sample Question Stems

Strategy

Inference Questions—Applied Example

9.4Definition-in-Context Questions

Sample Question Stems

Strategy

Definition-in-Context Questions—Applied Example

Concept and Strategy Summary

Introduction

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

After Chapter 9, you will be able to:

In order to get into college, you likely had to take an exam like the SAT® or ACT®, both of which feature sections that test reading comprehension. Most of the questions in those sections were straightforward, requiring you merely to search the text for a key fact, to define the meaning of a term used in a passage, or to identify the author’s thesis. Some of the more challenging questions may have required you to imagine things from the writer’s perspective or to explain why she used a certain word or phrase. Such questions can also be found in the Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills (CARS) section of the MCAT, though you will find that they are generally more difficult than the analogous questions found on your precollege exams.

Chapters 9, 10, and 11 of this textbook will follow the same general pattern. For each question type, we will briefly describe distinguishing features before examining some sample question stems. Then, after discussing strategic approaches to the question type, we’ll attack an example passage excerpt, providing at least one sample question of each type. The question types in this chapter all fall under the Foundations of Comprehension category and will be examined in the following order: Main Idea, Detail, Inference, and Definition-in-Context.

Note: The Question Types, as well as the Kaplan Method for CARS Passages, Kaplan Method for CARS Questions, and Wrong Answer Pathologies, are all included as tear-out sheets in the back of this book.

9.1 Main Idea Questions

Questions that ask about the big picture or major themes of the passage are what we call Main Idea questions. Only a small number of the questions in the CARS section fall into this type, but they are easy to recognize. The Kaplan Method for CARS Passages will arm you with everything you need to attack Main Idea questions, typically without referring back to the passage.

Sample Question Stems

Main Idea questions will often use some variant of the phrase central thesis, primary purpose, or—of course—main idea, or they might make some kind of general reference to the author. On rare occasions, Main Idea questions will bring in a more challenging aspect of the rhetorical situation, such as the audience or the medium.

BRIDGE

Main Idea questions that ask about the audience or the medium are checking your rhetorical analysis skills. Analysis of the likely author, her tone, and her voice can reveal the intended audience and most likely medium. Rhetoric was discussed in Chapter 3 of MCAT CARS Review.

Strategy

You should decide to work on a Main Idea question as soon as you encounter it, because these questions can get you some quick points. Your best bet for your Investigate step is simply to Go for the goal! As discussed in Chapter 6, no matter which Distill approach you take, you will consider the overarching purpose or goal of the passage before moving on to the questions. If you encounter a Main Idea question, the purpose that you considered during your passage distillation will usually echo the correct answer. When searching for a Match in the answer choices, both the verb and the content of each answer choice should be carefully considered. For Main Idea answer choices, the verb used to describe the author’s purpose in writing the passage is just as important as the content of the answer.

In the event that none of the choices come close to matching what you thought the author’s purpose was, you should use a systematic process of elimination to remove Faulty Use of Detail answers that are too narrow, Out of Scope options that go too far afield, and any answer choice that has the wrong tone (positive, negative, ambivalent, or impartial) or degree (extreme vs. moderate) as discussed in Chapter 8 of Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills Review.

MCAT EXPERTISE

The wrong answer choices in Main Idea questions are very predictable. One or more tend to be too narrow, reflecting the ideas from only one paragraph. One or more tend to be too broad, becoming Out of Scope. One or more tend to embody the wrong tone (positive, negative, ambivalent, or impartial) or degree (extreme vs. moderate).

Main Idea Questions—Applied Example

There is no shortage of evidence for the existence of systemic biases in ordinary human reasoning. For instance, Kahneman and Tversky in their groundbreaking 1974 work proposed the existence of a heuristic—an error-prone shortcut in reasoning—known as “anchoring.” In one of their most notable experiments, participants were exposed to the spin of a roulette wheel (specially rigged to land randomly on one of only two possible results) before being asked to guess what percentage of United Nations member states were African. The half of the sample who had the roulette wheel stop at 65 guessed, on average, that 45 percent of the UN was African, while those with a result of 10 guessed only 25 percent, demonstrating that prior presentation of a random number otherwise unconnected to a quantitative judgment can still influence that judgment.

The anchoring effect has been observed on repeated other occasions, such as in Dan Ariely’s experiment that used digits in Social Security numbers as an anchor for bids at an auction, and in the 1996 study by Wilson et al. that showed even awareness of the existence of anchoring bias is insufficient to mitigate its effects. The advertising industry has long been aware of this bias, the rationale for its frequent practice of featuring an “original” price before showing a “sale” price that is invariably reduced. Of course, anchoring is hardly alone among the defective tendencies in human reasoning; other systemic biases have also been experimentally identified, including loss aversion, the availability heuristic, and optimism bias.

Example:

Solution: Utilizing the Kaplan Question Strategy discussed in Chapter 8, start with the Type step. This question asks you to identify the primary task of the author, which is indicative of a Main Idea question. During your Read and Distill of the passage, you should consider the overall goal of the passage, meaning that these questions can be answered quickly. Attack and answer questions like this one as soon as you encounter them to earn quick points on Test Day.

The second step is to Rephrase the question. A simplification in this case might be Why did the author write this passage? or What was the author trying to convey to the reader? The task in Main Idea questions is usually well defined by the question stem, so the Rephrase step should be minimal, and you may not need to generate alternate phrasing at all.

The Investigate step will remain the same for Main Idea questions no matter which method you selected in your Choose step for the passage. Main Idea questions ask you to synthesize all of the information presented into an overall purpose. To solve, you should recall your reasoning about the purpose of the passage from the end of your Distill step, then find a Match in the answer choices. In this case, the author was attempting to present evidence for systemic biases in reasoning, especially anchoring.

That prediction from your Investigate step should immediately lead you to Match (B). The phrase discuss empirical findings is roughly equivalent in meaning to our present evidence. Also, the scope is right, with the answer focusing on anchoring but mentioning other biases because the author does introduce anchoring as an example with the phrase “For instance.”

On Test Day, whenever you find a match for a prediction or a choice that fulfills your expectation for correctness, go with that answer and move on to the next question. For these examples, though, it’s worth discussing what’s wrong with the other options. (A) comes close and has the appropriate scope, but the verb is wrong: in the very first sentence, the author says that “There is no shortage of evidence,” so why would the author’s task be to search for something so readily available? Moving on to (C), we find an Out of Scope choice: while the author says that systemic biases are common to thinking, there is never any comparison among the types mentioned. Just because the author focuses on anchoring does not mean that anchoring is necessarily the most frequently occurring—the author could choose to discuss it for any number of reasons other than its commonness. Finally, (D) is a Faulty Use of Detail because it is too specific. The referenced claim is made in the second paragraph, but it applies only to the study conducted by Wilson and others. This answer does not encompass the focus of the whole passage.

9.2 Detail Questions

Detail questions ask about what is stated explicitly in the passage. These are probably what you typically think of when you imagine a “reading comprehension” question, as they tend to require searching the text to find the missing piece. While Main

Idea questions focus on the big picture, Detail questions zoom in on some of the finer points of the passage. They are by far the most common question type in the Foundations of Comprehension category, constituting at least half of the questions that fall under this heading.

Sample Question Stems

Detail questions tend to contain simple, declarative language (is and are) rather than the subjunctive mood (would and could), often include phrases like the author states and according to the passage, and can take the form of incomplete sentences ending with a colon.

The last three examples listed above fall into what is known as the Scattered subtype. A Scattered question is one that either employs a set of Roman numeral options or uses a word like EXCEPT, NOT, or LEAST. While just about any type of question can be Scattered—from Scattered Function to Scattered Inference—Scattered Detail is perhaps the most common example of the Scattered subtype.

MCAT EXPERTISE

It is easy to forget that you are working on a LEAST/NOT/EXCEPT question when you’re analyzing the answer choices. Highlighting those words in the question stem can provide a visual clue that you are looking for a false statement as opposed to the three true wrong answers.

Strategy

The only trick to working with Detail questions is that sometimes a seemingly straightforward question can actually require making an inference (which is, notably, another type of question in the Foundations of Comprehension category). If you are dealing with a true Detail question, though, you should follow the clues in the question stem, especially the content buzzwords, and keep these terms as a focus during your Rephrase of the question stem. You should then Investigate by using your Distill step to help you home in on the relevant portion of the passage. If you Highlighted or Outlined, the main idea of each paragraph should help you find the relevant detail. If you Interrogated, you should return to the chunk that contained the detail being asked about in the question stem. Once you find the precise sentence referenced, remember to read at least the sentence before and the sentence after (unless, of course, you’re looking at the first or last sentence of the entire passage!) to get a bit more context. Once you’ve read the relevant text, complete your investigation by putting the sentence into your own words, and then look for the best match to answer the question.

BRIDGE

Sometimes, what appears to be a Detail question will actually require you to make an inference. Inference questions include both Assumption and Implication questions, the strategies for which are discussed later in this chapter.

You will likely want to save the Scattered Detail questions you encounter for later because these will often require researching three or four different parts of the text, rather than just one. When working with these questions, your approach will vary quite a bit depending on which passage strategy you’ve chosen. Process of elimination is almost inevitable with questions of the Scattered subtype, but that doesn’t mean you should immediately jump blindly into the answer choices. As with any question, take what you can from the stem to set some basic expectations.

MCAT EXPERTISE

For Detail questions, make sure to paraphrase the relevant text in a “short and sweet” format that will be easy to repeat to yourself while reading the answer choices. Much of the challenge of this type of question can be trying to figure out which answer choice actually matches your prediction—so make your prediction something that’s easy to remember!

Detail Questions—Applied Example

One of the first examples of the ascendance of abstraction in 20th-century art is the Dada movement, which Lowenthal dubbed “the groundwork to abstract art and sound poetry, a starting point for performance art, a prelude to postmodernism, an influence on pop art … and the movement that laid the foundation for surrealism.” Dadaism was ultimately premised on a philosophical rejection of the dominant culture, which is to say the dominating culture of colonialist Europe. Not content with the violent exploitation of other peoples, Europe’s ruling factions once again turned inward, reigniting provincial disputes into the conflagration that came to be known by the Eurocentric epithet “World War I”—the European subcontinent apparently being the only part of the world that mattered.

The absurd destructiveness of the Great War was a natural prelude to the creative absurdity of Dada. Is it any wonder that the rejection of reason made manifest by senseless atrocities should lead to the embrace of irrationality and disorder among the West’s subaltern artistic communities? Marcel Janco, one of the first Dadaists, cited this rationale: “We had lost confidence in our culture. Everything had to be demolished. We would begin again after the tabula rasa.” Thus, we find the overturning of what was once considered art: a urinal becomes the Fountain after Marcel Duchamp signs it “R. Mutt” in 1917, the nonsense syllables of Hugo Ball and Kurt Schwitters transform into “sound poems,” and dancers in cardboard cubist costumes accompanied by foghorns and typewriters metamorphosize into the ballet Parade. Unsurprisingly, many commentators, including founding members, have described Dada as an “anti-art” movement. Notwithstanding such a designation, Dadaism has left a lasting imprint on modern Western art.

Example:

Solution: The first step to the Kaplan Method for CARS Questions is the Type step, and when the stem says as stated in the passage, it usually signifies a Detail question (with some exceptions). You’ll most likely want to work on Detail questions right away, rather than saving them for later.

The Rephrase step is next, and this question could be rephrased into a specific task: Find in the passage what the leaders of Europe were focused on prior to the war. There are two buzzwords in the question stem: the Great War and the leaders of Europe. The first comes directly from the start of paragraph 2, where you can judge from the context that it must be another name for what we now call World War I. (They of course didn’t know there was going to be a second one at the time!) The second buzzword does not appear verbatim, but it shows up in the synonymous phrase “Europe’s ruling factions” in the last sentence of paragraph 1. In addition to reading these two sentences to refresh yourself if necessary as part of your investigation, it may be worth reading one before and one after.

When we Investigate, the preceding sentence offers a key bit of context, illustrating that the author regards European culture quite negatively, with the phrase “the dominating culture of colonialist Europe.” More of the same follows with the phrase “violent exploitation of other peoples,” as this author highlights Europe’s past as a global colonizer. The phrase “once again turned inward” is noteworthy for mirroring the language of focused on featured in the question stem. Putting this all together sets a thorough expectation for the correct answer: if the turning inward happened with the Great War, then prior to that, Europe’s leaders must have been looking outward, focusing on their colonial acquisitions. This prediction finds a match in (B).

Among the wrong options, (A) is based on a misunderstanding of the terminology. Though World War I is mentioned in the prior sentence, the author calls attention to the fact that it only later came to be known by that “epithet” (name) and then in the following sentence uses another name for it. Because the two terms refer to the same event, European leaders could not be focused on it before it happened. In contrast, (C) is an Opposite because Europeans were actually turning outward at their colonies. Finally, (D) is a Faulty Use of Detail: that phrase appears almost exactly, but it actually describes the founders of the Dada movement, not the European leaders.

MCAT EXPERTISE

One of the unique critical thinking challenges on the MCAT is based on the use of synonym. Test questions and answer choices are likely to use synonymous terms, rather than directly quoting the associated passage. Keep this in mind and remain flexible in your thinking when you Investigate a question stem or search for a Match in the answer choices to a particular question.

Example:

Solution: Although the test maker will often put the word not in italics or all caps, sometimes it will appear plainly in a question stem, as seen here. Don’t be fooled as you Type the question: this is still a Scattered Detail question. Because Scattered Detail questions are often time-consuming, you’d likely want to make it the last question you work on in the question set. When you do commit to working through a Scattered Detail question, don’t forget to Rephrase the stem and set some basic expectations. The phrasing a characteristic associated with is vague enough that it could mean something the author says, or it could potentially reflect another view identified in the passage. That means you can’t rule out an answer choice just because it doesn’t sound like something the author would say, so long as it sounds like something someone else in the passage would. Because both paragraphs are chock-full of claims about Dadaism, there’s no point in searching the text to set additional expectations—you’ll have to go with a more minimal prediction as the output of your Investigate step.

(A) comes directly from the author’s second sentence: “Dadaism was ultimately premised on a philosophical rejection of the … culture of colonialist Europe.” The word renunciation is a synonym of rejection—so cross off this option. Moving on to the next choice, while the author explicitly rejected the idea that Dadaism is “anti-art,” that view is still reflected in the passage in the next-to-last sentence, where the author writes “many commentators, including founding members, have described Dada as an ‘anti-art’ movement.” Another way of saying that many commentators describe it that way is to say that it has a reputation. Hence, (B) should also be eliminated. The next characteristic is found at both the beginning of the passage, with the quotation from Lowenthal, and at the end, with the author’s statement that “Dadaism has left a lasting imprint on modern Western art.” With (C) now off the table, we know that (D) must be the answer—but let’s check it anyway.

This choice is very close to being a characteristic; however, the word atrocities prevents it from being associated with Dadaism and makes it the correct choice. The key sentence is worth repeating in full in order to untangle it: “Is it any wonder that the rejection of reason made manifest by senseless atrocities should lead to the embrace of irrationality and disorder among the West’s subaltern artistic communities?” The author is saying that Dadaism embraces irrationality, although not in the same way that irrationality (rejection of reason) manifests itself in warfare (senseless atrocities). The preceding sentence offers some useful clarification: “The absurd destructiveness of the Great War was a natural prelude to the creative absurdity of Dada.” Notice how the word absurd is used to join two concepts that are typically viewed as opposites: creation and destruction. The author is suggesting that, even though both the Great War and Dadaism defied reason, they did so in dramatically different ways. This irrationality or absurdness in Dadaism stood in opposition to the atrocities of World War I; the word embrace in the answer choice makes this statement not a characteristic of Dadaism. That’s why (D) is correct.

9.3 Inference Questions

What makes Inference questions distinctive is that they deal with unstated parts of arguments: information that is not explicitly written by the author but that must be true given what is claimed in the passage. It is crucial to understand that the correct answers to Inference questions are not simply assertions that are possibly true or that could be accurate; rather, they are necessary assumptions or at least highly probable implications. This is why Inference questions are considered Foundations of Comprehension rather than Reasoning Within the Text questions: the answers are directly implied and must be true based on the written text. We call these Inference questions because, as first noted in Chapter 3 of MCAT CARS Review, it is the common name of the process used to arrive at both assumptions (unstated evidence) and implications (unstated conclusions), collectively known as inferences.

Sample Question Stems

As these examples indicate, during the first step of the Kaplan Method for CARS Questions—in which you Type the question —you can recognize that you might be dealing with an Inference question if you see one or more of the following words (or variations of them): assume, because, conclude, imply, infer, justify, reasonable, or suggest. However, if a question stem contains any of these words and new information of some kind, then it will fall into the Reasoning Beyond the Text category instead (which we will discuss in Chapter 11). If there are no new elements, you are likely dealing with an Inference question.

As previously alluded to, there is actually something of a continuum between Detail and Inference questions; the position of questions on that continuum varies based on the complexity of the reasoning used to solve them. A question that tells you to make an inference might require one relatively simple step, such as canceling out a double negative or identifying a paraphrase of lines from the passage. Sometimes you’ll even find you were told to look for an item that the passage suggests or the author implies but, as you Investigate, you may discover that the answer was in the text virtually word for word. In cases such as these, consider yourself fortunate, because you’ve uncovered a Detail question in disguise! The predictions you make for these questions will likely be more than adequate to match to the correct answer.

The downside to this ambiguity is that sometimes a question that uses simple declarative language will require a lot more critical thinking than you expected. Just because a stem includes a phrase like the author asserts or as stated in the passage (common question stems for Detail questions) does not necessarily mean that the answer is stated in a straightforward manner. Notwithstanding such trickery on the part of the AAMC, as long as you recognize the possibility that apparent Detail questions can be disguised as Inference questions and are prepared to apply the Denial Test strategy to those questions, you can avoid being fooled!

Strategy

There are only two basic tasks with the Inference question type. When you recognize that you need to make an inference, first ask yourself whether you are looking for a missing but essential piece of evidence (an assumption) or for a conclusion that is unstated but highly probable given what is said (an implication).

Assumptions

If you Rephrase the stem and your task is to identify an assumption, your Investigation should begin by determining what claim the assumption is supposed to underlie. Sometimes the question stem will say this explicitly, or it may use quoted text or paragraph numbers to refer to a particular claim. If not, depending on which passage strategy you used, you may need to go back and do research in the passage. If you need to go back to the passage as you investigate, you should reread the relevant passage sentences and isolate the specific statement, taking care to see whether there’s any existing evidence in the surrounding text that’s used to support the statement. Logic keywords are your best friends here, but keep in mind that a lot of authors use them sparsely, so they won’t always be there to help. The Match to assumption questions might include words or ideas that are similar to a piece of evidence actually stated, so you can use any that you locate for your prediction, or just go with whatever links the evidence provided to the conclusion when you reread the text—now I see what the author is taking for granted!

KEY CONCEPT

Inferences are unstated parts of arguments that must be true based on what the passage says. Assumptions are unstated pieces of evidence, while implications are unstated conclusions.

Implications

If you Rephrase the stem and your task is to identify an implication, center your Investigation on any particular sentences referenced in the question stem. Watch out for Logic keywords, just as with assumptions. Now, however, you’ll be looking to see whether the particular statements referenced are used to support anything else. If so, use those explicitly supported conclusions to set your expectations for the correct answer. Alternatively, if another implication occurs to you when you reread, you can use that as a prediction.

Whenever you can’t find a Match for your prediction—if you thought it was a Detail question, if you didn’t know where to look because the stem had no paragraph reference clues, or if the answer choices just turned out very differently than you expected—plan B is to use a special version of process of elimination known as the Denial Test. Let’s take a look at how it works in practice.

The Denial Test

For each answer choice, negate (take the opposite of) what is being said. In question stems that end with a colon (:), you may need to take part of the text from the end of the stem and combine it with the answer choice to create a sentence that can then be denied. Be careful with sentences that already contain negative words, prefixes, and suffixes, because sometimes just removing that text is not enough to change the meaning in the proper way. If nothing else, any claim can be denied by adding It is not the case that to the beginning of the sentence. Once you’ve denied the claim, think about the effect the denied claim has on the passage. If you’re not sure what effect it has, look for clues in the question stem or the answer choice itself to see if it refers to a particular part of the passage that you could reread. If it’s clear that the negated claim has no significant impact, then eliminate that answer.

MCAT EXPERTISE

While the Denial Test will always reveal the correct answer in an Inference question, it’s very time-consuming. If you cannot set good expectations for the right answer during the Execute step, triage the question and return to it later with the Denial Test.

When you come across an answer choice that logically conflicts with the text once you’ve negated it, you’ve likely found the correct answer. However, sometimes multiple answer choices will have denials that cause problems for the text, so when executing the Denial Test you should always test every answer choice and pick the one for which negation has the most detrimental impact on arguments or assertions from the passage. Keep in mind that this can be time-consuming, which is why it’s generally a good idea to save a question for later if you believe the Denial test will be necessary to answer it.

It is hard to understand how the Denial Test works simply by reading about it. Check out the Worked Example below and make sure to practice the Denial Test on Inference questions to get used to using it.

Inference Questions—Applied Example

In 1941, an exuberant nationalist wrote: “We must accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation … to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.” If forced to guess the identity of the writer, many US citizens would likely suspect a German jingoist advocating for Lebensraum. In actuality, the sentiment was expressed by one of America’s own: Henry Luce, the highly influential publisher of the magazines Life, Time, and Fortune. Luce sought to dub the 1900s the “American Century,” calling upon the nation to pursue global hegemony as it slipped from the grasp of warring Old World empires. As a forecast of world history, Luce’s pronouncement seems prescient—but is it justifiable as a normative stance?

Not all of Luce’s contemporaries bought into his exceptionalist creed. Only a year later, Henry Wallace, vice president under FDR, insisted that no country had the “right to exploit other nations” and that “military [and] economic imperialism” were invariably immoral. It is a foundational assumption in ethics that the wrongness of an act is independent of the particular identity of the actor—individuals who pay no heed to moral consistency are justly condemned as hypocrites. So why should it be any different for nation-states? In accord with this principle, Wallace proselytized for “the century of the common man,” for the furtherance of a “great revolution of the people,” and for bringing justice and prosperity to all persons irrespective of accidents of birth. Sadly, Wallace never had the chance to lead the United States in this cosmopolitan direction; prior to Roosevelt’s demise at the beginning of his fourth term, the vice presidency was handed to Harry Truman, a man whose narrow provincialism ensconced him firmly in Luce’s camp. And with Truman came the ghastly atomic eradication of two Japanese cities, the dangerous precedent set by military action without congressional approval in Korea, and a Cold War with the Soviet Union that brought the world to the brink of nuclear destruction.

Example:

Solution: The assumed at the end of the question stem makes the Type step for this question straightforward: it must be an Inference question. Rephrasing the question stem should give you something along the lines of “Based on the passage, what did Henry Luce assume?” Using this rephrase, we know we’re looking for an assumption from a portion of the passage relevant to Luce’s argument, and we’ll want to rely on our Distill technique, possibly in combination with referring back to the passage itself, in order to Investigate. Luce advocated for what the author calls the exceptionalist stance that the United States, as the most powerful country at the time, was free to do as it pleased. This is in contrast to Henry Wallace, who explicitly rebuffed Luce’s view, so watch out for Faulty Uses of Detail answer choices that would actually describe Wallace.

Denying (A) yields the United States did have the right to create a military or economic empire, which is completely consistent with Luce’s view. Eliminate it. As written, (A) is actually a view attributed to Wallace by the author, so it’s both a FUD and an Opposite as this was the major point of disagreement between the two.

(B) contains never, which is an Extreme keyword, but because Luce seems to have a fairly strong position, don’t jump to dismissing the answer as a Distortion quite yet. It’s a bit trickier to negate: to say that it is not the case that some event never happens is the same as saying the event sometimes occurs. Thus, the proper negation of (B) is nation-states are sometimes bound by the same ethical principles that persons are, which is completely consistent with Luce, who presumably believes that ethical principles do apply to nations sometimes, say on those occasions when the nation in question is not the United States. Eliminate it.

For (C), the contradiction would be the same normative standards should not apply to both Americans and Germans, which is again consistent with Luce’s “American Century” idea. Hence, we can definitely cross off (C), which, as written, is actually another one of Wallace’s beliefs—a second Opposite/FUD combo.

All that remains is (D), which does indeed destroy the argument if rejected. Countering it by saying moral rules that govern individual behavior do necessarily apply to countries would mean that they always apply. But this supports the anti-hypocrisy argument that the author makes in favor of Wallace and against Luce at the beginning of paragraph 2. Thus, denying (D) would make Henry Luce’s argument fall apart, and so it is an assumption Luce has made. (B) was simply a more extreme version of this claim, rightly rejected as a Distortion because an author is more likely to assume a weak form of a statement than a strong one.

BRIDGE

Remember that the opposite of an Extreme Negative keyword (like never) is a Moderating Positive keyword (like sometimes). The circular view of Author keywords presented in Chapter 5 of MCAT CARS Review is a great way to visualize this change.

Example:

Solution: We can Type this question as an Inference question given the phrase reasonable to infer. With a stem like this, which has no specific clues or references, you may find Rephrasing barely changes anything, and thus choose to dive straight into the Investigate step. With a stem that gives almost no information, we have little choice but to proceed with the Denial Test. It’s not entirely clear what kind of inference this is, because an author “believes” both assumptions and implications. While you can guess based on the author’s descriptive language that he or she does not approve of Harry Truman, you do not know the writer’s feelings toward any of the other American presidents in the 1900s, so denying that Truman was the worst president would not have too much of an impact. Therefore (A) is a Distortion, too extreme to attribute to the author.

For (B), you do not really know what the author believes about Franklin Delano Roosevelt (FDR). We only know that he was the US president serving over both Wallace and Truman. Therefore, we can make no safe inferences about FDR’s attitude toward Luce’s point of view: this Out of Scope option should be discarded.

Negate (C) and you arrive at Henry Wallace would have approved of the use of atomic weapons. If this were so, had he become president, he would have been guilty of the very misdeeds for which the author blames Truman—and the author would be utterly inconsistent in praising the one and condemning the other. In fact, because the author rails against hypocrisy, it is clear that he or she would have to hold the two men to the same ethical standards. Thus, denying (C) would considerably undermine the author’s argument in paragraph 2, and this is almost certainly the answer.

To make sure, finish executing the Denial Test: rejecting (D) would have no negative impact—in fact, it would support the author’s claim that Luce’s view “seem[ed] prescient” as an historical prediction. This assumption suggests that the author indeed views Luce’s view as historically accurate, even if ethically questionable. You can now be confident that (C) is the answer.

9.4 Definition-in-Context Questions

Definition-in-Context questions are the final question type to fall into the Foundations of Comprehension category. The task generated from the Rephrase of these questions is always the same: define the word or phrase as it is used in the passage. These questions are infrequent on Test Day, but are straightforward and make for easy points when they do occur.

Sample Question Stems

This list of stems makes it clear that Definition-in-Context questions always feature a reference to a word, phrase, or an entire claim from the passage, the meaning of which you are tasked with identifying. Quotation marks and italics are common features used to call attention to the terms, but on occasion a Definition-in-Context question stem may lack these.

Strategy

Although these questions ask about the meanings of words, a dictionary will not help you here, and in some cases it could even lead you astray. Trap answers in these questions are often the common definitions of the word, which are tempting Out of Scope choices that fail to match the use of the term in the context of the passage. These questions tend to be relatively fast to solve because they refer only to small portions of the text. Thus, you should generally decide to work on these questions as soon as you see them.

MCAT EXPERTISE

An author may imbue common words with a special meaning in the passage. Therefore, be sure to check how the author actually uses the word in a Definition-in-Context question, rather than looking for a dictionary definition of the term. Wrong answers in these questions are often accurate definitions of the term that do not match how the term was used in the passage.

Your Investigation with a Definition-in-Context question will be to go to the text and surrounding context, if necessary, to see how the word or phrase is used in the passage. With this question type, the question stems will usually contain a paragraph reference, but use your recall of your Interrogation, your Outlining, or your Highlighting if this reference is not given to locate the relevant sentence. For this question type in particular, even if you interrogated the passage, it’s likely you will need to go back into the passage and reread the surrounding materials. If reading that sentence doesn’t give you enough to work with, look at the sentences before and after the target term or phrase. Wrap up your Investigation with a clear prediction: define the term or phrase in your own words based on how it was used in the passage. Author keywords may be especially helpful, because answer choices with the wrong tone can immediately be ruled out.

Definition-in-Context Questions—Applied Example

In 1941, an exuberant nationalist wrote: “We must accept wholeheartedly our duty and our opportunity as the most powerful and vital nation … to exert upon the world the full impact of our influence, for such purposes as we see fit and by such means as we see fit.” If forced to guess the identity of the writer, many US citizens would likely suspect a German jingoist advocating for Lebensraum. In actuality, the sentiment was expressed by one of America’s own: Henry Luce, the highly influential publisher of the magazines Life, Time, and Fortune. Luce sought to dub the 1900s the “American Century,” calling upon the nation to pursue global hegemony as it slipped from the grasp of warring Old World empires. As a forecast of world history, Luce’s pronouncement seems prescient—but is it justifiable as a normative stance?

Not all of Luce’s contemporaries bought into his exceptionalist creed. Only a year later, Henry Wallace, vice president under FDR, insisted that no country had the “right to exploit other nations” and that “military [and] economic imperialism” were invariably immoral. It is a foundational assumption in ethics that the wrongness of an act is independent of the particular identity of the actor—individuals who pay no heed to moral consistency are justly condemned as hypocrites. So why should it be any different for nation-states? In accord with this principle, Wallace proselytized for “the century of the common man,” for the furtherance of a “great revolution of the people,” and for bringing justice and prosperity to all persons irrespective of accidents of birth. Sadly, Wallace never had the chance to lead the United States in this cosmopolitan direction; prior to Roosevelt’s demise at the beginning of his fourth term, the vice presidency was handed to Harry Truman, a man whose narrow provincialism ensconced him firmly in Luce’s camp. And with Truman came the ghastly atomic eradication of two Japanese cities, the dangerous precedent set by military action without congressional approval in Korea, and a Cold War with the Soviet Union that brought the world to the brink of nuclear destruction.

Example:

Solution: With the stereotypical Definition-in-Context question structure, Typing this question as Definition-in-Context should be a quick and easy step, with little to no Rephrase needed prior to proceeding with the Investigate step. The clue in the question stem points to the second paragraph, but the reference might still be difficult to find in a paragraph full of -isms. The key sentence is: “Sadly, Wallace never had the chance to lead the United States in this cosmopolitan direction; prior to Roosevelt’s demise at the beginning of his fourth term, the vice presidency was handed to Harry Truman, a man whose narrow provincialism ensconced him firmly in Luce’s camp.” This sentence gives you a lot to work with. You can see that provincialism is a view attributed to Truman and Luce, who are contraposed to the “cosmopolitan” Wallace. In a passage that features a few different perspectives, it’s not surprising to see a question like this that requires keeping straight who holds which view. This passage presents two major sides, and it’s clear that provincialism represents a view that belongs to Truman, whose views align with those of Luce.

With these expectations established, look for a match in the answers. Because both nationalism (at the start of paragraph 1) and exceptionalism (at the start of paragraph 2) are views attributed to Luce, it is evident that (C) must be correct. (A) is a Faulty Use of Detail; a German jingoist was mentioned in the first paragraph, but this phrase is no good because Luce and Truman are both Americans. (B) echoes the quotation from Wallace as he criticizes Luce—“military [and] economic imperialism”—but all of the examples given for Truman show evidence of military action, not economic: “the ghastly atomic eradication of two Japanese cities, the dangerous precedent set by military action without congressional approval in Korea, and a Cold War with the Soviet Union that brought the world to the brink of nuclear destruction.” The emphasis in (B) is therefore misplaced. Lastly, (D) uses a variant of cosmopolitan, a characteristic that was attributed to Wallace, so it’s an Opposite.

Conclusion

Reading comprehension is a skill you’ve been honing your whole life—most exams you’ve had in literature and English classes have most likely centered on your ability to understand the text you read. On the MCAT, reading comprehension is important not only for answering Foundations of Comprehension questions, but also for understanding the passage itself. While they take many forms, including Main Idea, Detail, Inference, and Definition-in-Context, all Foundations of Comprehension questions share a few common features. Answering all of these question types is facilitated by a solid understanding of the structure of the passage, which can be used to locate the relevant text for the answer. The answers to all of these questions must be stated, paraphrased, or implied directly in the passage. That said, not all of these questions are asking for the same thing: these question types differ in significant ways. For example, Main Idea and Definition-in-Context questions should usually be answered as soon as you see them, whereas Detail (especially Scattered Detail) and some of the more challenging Inference questions may be more time-consuming and should, therefore, be saved until the end of the question set. Each of these questions can be Typed, Rephrased, and Investigated in predictable ways. We’ll continue discussing question types in the next two chapters as we explore Reasoning Within the Text and Reasoning Beyond the Text questions.

GO ONLINE

You’ve reviewed the strategy, now test your knowledge and critical thinking skills by completing a test-like passage set in your online resources!

Concept and Strategy Summary

Main Idea Questions

Detail Questions

Inference Questions

Definition-in-Context Questions

Worked Example

Use the Worked Example below, in tandem with the subsequent practice passages, to internalize and apply the strategies described in this chapter. The Worked Example matches the specifications and style of a typical MCAT Critical Analysis and Reasoning Skills (CARS) passage.

Take a few moments to quickly glance over the passage in order to Preview and Choose your approach. Highlighting can be beneficial when a passage is complex and the author jumps and pivots from one perspective to the next. The following passage has those qualities, and it also has unusual structural features that don’t lend themselves well to Outlining or Interrogating. Thus, the Highlighting method is a strong way to approach this passage, specifically because it can be used to clearly visually indicate the points where major ideas are introduced and the points where the author shifts her focus. This will speed up efforts to find relevant information while answering questions later. As with all passages, any approach could be chosen and work for this passage, so, remember to practice all approaches as you start your CARS prep in order to determine which work best for you and in what situations!

HIGHLIGHTING METHOD Passage Expert Thinking

… Until last year, many people—but not most economists—thought that economic data told a simple tale. On one side, productivity—the average output of an average worker—was rising. And although the rate of productivity increase was very slow during the 1970s and early 1980s, the official numbers said that it had accelerated significantly in the 1990s. By 1994, an average worker was producing about 20 percent more than 1978.

What is the main theme of the passage? What words could be highlighted to demonstrate what this passage and paragraph are about?

The first sentence hints that the author is about to dispute conventional wisdom. However, this isn’t the best phrase to highlight, as it’s not the focus of the paragraph. A more informative highlight would be “productivity increase,” as it captures what this paragraph is about.

On the other hand, other statistics said that real, inflation-adjusted wages had not been rising at the same rate. Some commonly cited numbers showed real wages actually falling over the last 25 years. Those who did their homework knew that the gloomiest numbers overstated the case … Still, even the most optimistic measure, the total hourly compensation of the average worker, rose only 3 percent between 1978 and 1994 …

What parallel structure did you notice in this paragraph? What phrase can be highlighted to indicate the new concept introduced in this paragraph?

This paragraph’s first line is similar to the “On one side” sentence in the previous paragraph. More accurately, this paragraph is a continuation of the first paragraph and completes the thought. Highlight the phrase “real wages actually falling” because it represents the conclusion of the author’s first point. That is, the simple tale is how productivity went up, but real wages went down.

… But now, experts tell us it may have been a figment of our statistical imaginations … a blue-ribbon panel of economists headed by Michael Boskin of Stanford declared that the Consumer Price Index [C.P.I.] had been systematically overstating inflation, probably by more than 1 percent per year for the last two decades, mainly failing to take account of changes in consumption patterns and product quality improvements …

What pivot point did you notice in this paragraph? What phrase should you highlight to capture this shift?

The first word of this paragraph indicates that the author is about to pivot into his second point. However, highlighting the “But now” phrase in the first sentence won’t actually indicate what the author’s point is when referring back to the passage. Instead, highlight “overstating inflation” to capture the new focus of this paragraph. When using the Highlighting method, do not highlight terms like C.P.I.: although it is a new term, the term is isolated and doesn’t match the theme of this passage up to this point. This is the kind of term you might highlight if you were Outlining or Interrogating, as something a Definition-in-Context or Detail question might ask about.

… The Boskin Report, in particular, is not an official document—it will be quite a while before the government actually issues a revised C.P.I., and the eventual revision may be smaller than Boskin proposed. Still, the general outline of the resolution is pretty clear. When revisions are taken into account, productivity growth will probably look somewhat higher than before because some of the revisions will also affect how we calculate growth. But the rate of growth of real wages will look much higher—roughly in line with productivity. In other words, the whole story about workers not sharing in productivity gains will turn out to have been based on a statistical illusion …

How is this paragraph linked to the previous paragraph? What is the most important information in this paragraph?

A new term, “Boskin Report,” is introduced, which relates to the mention of Michael Boskin in the previous paragraph. The first half of this paragraph mostly speaks about the technical aspect of the Boskin Report, but the actual main idea is about disproving that real wages are falling while productivity is climbing. Highlight “in line with productivity” or a related phrase to capture this idea. With this theme identified, this paragraph can be identified as a conceptual extension of the previous paragraph.

It is important not to go overboard on this point. There are real problems in America, and our previous concerns were not pure hypochondriasis. For one, economic progress over the past 25 years has been much slower than in the previous 25. Even if Boskin’s numbers are right, median family income—which officially has experienced virtually no gain since 1973—has risen by only about 35 percent over the past 25 years, compared with 100 percent over the previous 25. Furthermore, it is likely that if we “Boskinized” the old data—that is, if we tried to adjust the C.P.I. for the 50s and 60s to take account of changing consumption patterns and rising product quality—we would find that official numbers understated the rate of progress just as much if not more than they did in recent decades …

What pivots are in this paragraph? What phrases should you highlight to track the author’s perspective?

In this paragraph, the author emphasizes that the claims discussed in the first two paragraphs about the “simple tale” are not totally unfounded. This can be represented by highlighting “not pure hypochondriasis.” The following sentences dive into the details surrounding concerns about the economy. You could additionally highlight “understated the rate” because it parallels with the previous notion that the Boskin report is used to adjust the old data.

… Moreover, while workers as a group have shared fully in national productivity gains, they have not done so equally. The overwhelming evidence of a huge increase in income inequality in America has nothing to do with price indices and is therefore unaffected by recent statistical revelations. Families in the bottom fifth, who had 5.4 percent of total income in 1970, had only 4.2 percent in 1994; over the same period, the top 5 percent went from 15.6 to 20.1. Corporate CEOs, who used to make about 35 times as much as their employees, now make 120 times as much or more …

What is the main idea for this paragraph? What are some low-yield details not worth highlighting?

The main idea in this paragraph is “income inequality,” extending the previous paragraph’s idea that the “simple tale” has some merit to it. The second half of this paragraph talks about the details of income inequality in American society. These details do not offer anything remarkably new.

… While these are real and serious problems, however, one thing is now clear: the truth about what is happening in America is more subtle than the simplistic morality play about greedy capitalists and oppressed workers that so many would-be sophisticates accepted only a few months ago.

What final conclusion is drawn in the last paragraph?

The last paragraph brings the passage full circle by restating a conclusion found in the first paragraph. The author is arguing against the “simple tale” that real wages are falling, and claims that the actual picture is more complicated. “More subtle” captures that idea. For details and to answer most questions, we will have to refer back to previous paragraphs.

Question Analysis

The words according to the passage tell us this is a Detail question, which should be quick points. The term “Boskinized” appears in paragraph 5, where we find that it means that Boskin adjusted the C.P.I. to take account of changing consumption patterns and rising product quality.

(A) may be tempting because Boskin’s model did, in the end, increase apparent wages, but the passage makes no mention of decreasing productivity measures, making this choice Out of Scope. This choice also does not match with how the term “Boskinized” is used in the passage.

(B) is also Out of Scope because there is no mention of technology’s role in the passage.

This choice is a spot-on match with the passage, making (C) the correct answer.

(D) gives us an option that discusses wage inequality. However, this idea was a facet of the author’s argument, not of Boskin’s revisions. This is a Faulty Use of Detail answer choice.

The word EXCEPT shows us that this is a Scattered Detail question—one that might be worth skipping on Test Day until more time is available. To investigate, we must find relevant details and eliminate them systematically, keeping in mind that the correct answer is the one NOT included in the passage.

Paragraph 3 tells us that the Boskin Report demonstrated that the C.P.I. “had been systematically overstating inflation,” eliminating (A).

Paragraph 4 shows us that Boskin did reconcile wages and productivity, eliminating (B).

(C) is not present in the passage. While the income disparity was discussed, no mention was made of its causes—making this the correct answer.

In paragraph 5, we see that Boskin’s work, if applied to the 1950s and 1960s, “could find that official numbers understated the rate of progress,” eliminating (D).

The word assumes shows us that this is an Inference question, meaning our first Investigate action is to look back at paragraph one and its themes.

(A) can be eliminated because this is discussed in paragraph 6, rather than paragraph 1.

(B) The unstated evidence in paragraph 1 is that productivity is a measure of economic growth—making this the correct answer.

(C) is Opposite, because the author states that “while workers … have shared … in national productivity gains, they have not done so equally.” It is also Out of Scope because it comes from paragraph 2.

(D) This paragraph focuses on income inequality, not the discrepancy between productivity growth and wage increases. Faulty Use of Detail.

The words primary purpose identify this as a Main Idea question, which usually can be answered quickly. The goal in this passage that we identified when highlighting is to argue that the C.P.I., with or without Boskin’s work, understated real wages; and that the productivity/wage disparity is more complicated than it first appears.

(A) is correct; the passage primarily addresses the idea that the “C.P.I.… understated real wages” (and therefore does not fully explain the current state of the American worker).

In (B), the answer is far too specific as it applies only to paragraph 2 and not the entire passage.

The capitalist oppression of the worker is part of the simplistic model dismissed in paragraph 7. Because the author does not agree with this model, (C) can be eliminated.

Congressional divide, while perhaps present in real life, was never mentioned in the passage, making (D) Out of Scope.

This is a Definition-in-Context question. A quick scan of paragraph 3 shows us that “statistical imagination” refers to a shortcoming of the traditional C.P.I. model, due to failure to “take account of changes in consumption patterns and product quality improvements.” Be on the lookout for any wrong answers that sound like a standard definition for imagination.

(A) is Out of Scope because we’re never told that data was falsified.

(B) matches closely with the prediction and is the correct answer.

(C) is Out of Scope because this passage never compares mathematical models to anecdotal reports in terms of validity.

The C.P.I. certainly has some issues but is not the completely unreliable tool mentioned in (D)—this is Extreme.

Practice Questions

Passage 1 (Questions 1–6)

The United States has less than half of the 215 million acres of wetlands that existed at the time of European settlement. Wetland conversion began upon the arrival of European immigrants with their traditional antipathy to wetlands and with the will and technology to dry them out. In the mid-19th century, the federal government awarded nearly 65 million acres of wetlands to 15 states in a series of Swamp Land Acts. But the most rapid conversion occurred between the mid-1950s and mid-1970s, when an estimated 450,000 acres per year were lost, primarily to agriculture.

This conversion has meant the loss of a wide range of important wetland functions. Wetlands inhibit downstream flooding, prevent erosion along coasts and rivers, and help remove or assimilate pollutants. They support scores of endangered birds, mammals, amphibians, plants, and fishes. Wetlands provide aesthetic and open-space benefits, and some are critical groundwater exchange areas. These and other public benefits have been lost to agricultural forestry and development enterprises of all kinds, despite the fact that most of the conversion goals might have been obtained with far less wetland loss through regional planning, stronger regulation, and greater public understanding of wetland values.

At best, existing wetland laws and programs only slow the rate of loss. Despite the growing willingness of government to respond, wetland protection faces significant obstacles. Acquisition as a remedy will always be limited by severe budget constraints. The Emergency Wetlands Resources Act allocates only $40 million per year in federal funds, supplemented by relatively modest state funds, for wetland purchase. Ultimately, the wetlands that are protected will be a small percentage of the approximately 95 million acres remaining today. Wetland acquisition by private environmental groups and land trusts adds qualitatively important, but quantitatively limited, protection. Government incentives to induce wetland conservation through private initiatives are limited and poorly funded. Some private developers have recognized that business can protect selected wetlands and still profit. Recreational developments in Florida have benefited from wetland and habitat protection that preserves visual amenities. It is doubtful, however, that these business decisions to save wetlands would have occurred without strong government regulation; the marketplace does not generally recognize the public benefits of wetlands for flood control, fish and wildlife, and other long-term values.

One possible strategy (and the one presently being implemented) is to protect each and every wetland in threatened areas according to stringent permit guidelines that do not distinguish by wetland types or values. This approach may be environmentally desirable, but it has not worked. About 300,000 acres of wetlands are lost each year. An alternative strategy is to develop a regional management approach focused on valuable wetlands in selected areas that are under intense pressure. Broad regional wetland evaluations could identify critical wetland systems that meet particular local and national needs and avoid abandonment of any wetlands without careful review of the trade-offs. Cooperating federal, state, and local interests can then anticipate and seek ways to prevent wetland losses and can guide future development in areas where alternative options exist. There is no general federal authority to conduct such planning for wetland system protection. But there are several authorities under which a program to anticipate and prevent wetland losses on an area-wide basis can be developed.

Practice Answers

Passage 1 (Questions 1–6) Sample Highlighting P1. “wetland conversion”; P2. “wetland function” and “lost to”; P3. “obstacles” and “private initiatives”; P4. “alternative strategy” and “no general federal authority.”

Sample Outlining P1. History of wetlands conversion

P2. Benefits of wetlands, ways loss could have been minimized

P3. Current problems with conservation efforts and ways of minimizing further loss

P4. Current solution (save all threatened wetlands) hasn’t worked; proposes new regional management strategy

1. D

The word assumes signifies to us that we are approaching an Inference question type. Inference questions ask us to find the necessary connecting information. With a paragraph reference, there is clear direction on where to begin the Investigate step. In paragraph 1 we’re told “Wetland conversion began upon the arrival of European immigrants with their traditional antipathy to wetlands and with the will and technology to dry them out … when an estimated 450,000 acres per year were lost, primarily to agriculture.” For answer choice (A), costs were discussed in paragraph 3 but not paragraph 1. In answer choice (B) Wetland conversion began with the arrival of European immigrants, not wetland conservation. Answer choice (C) is an Out Of Scope answer choice. While the passage is about the wetlands and they may be a source of tourism income, that topic is never discussed within the passage. This leaves answer choice (D) as the correct answer, and further, this is a reasonable inference, as we are told that wetlands were converted to agricultural property.

2. C

For this Scattered Detail question type, we will have to find three answer choices that are mentioned in the passage and eliminate them. For (A), the “technological innovations” of European settlers are mentioned in paragraph 1. “Development enterprises” are listed at the end of paragraph 2, which eliminates (B). (C), however, cannot be found in the passage. No mention is made of increased rezoning of wetlands, so this must be the correct answer. Finally, “conversion of wetlands for agricultur[e]” is listed at the end of the first paragraph, which removes (D).

3. D

Typing this question is pretty straightforward, as you are given a word from the last paragraph and asked what it means in the passage, making this a Definition-in-Context question. The best thing to do with a question like this is to reread the targeted sentence in the passage, as well as the surrounding sentences. The sentence the word appears in is “There is no general federal authority to conduct such planning for wetland system protection.” This sentence alone doesn’t give a full answer, but the sentence before gives the necessary context by mentioning “federal, state, and local interests,” or the organizations that are in power to conduct planning which matches (D). Answer choices (A), (B), and (C) are all definitions for authority, but are not the definition that the author was referencing in this passage, which makes them all Out of Scope answers.

4. B

This Inference question is asking for an inference the author made without a passage reference. This would be a good question to leave for your second pass through the questions. Answer choice (A) is a Faulty Use of Detail choice from paragraph 4 that does not answer the question being asked. In paragraph 3, the passage tells us “At best, existing wetland laws and programs only slow the rate of loss,” which Matches answer choice (B). Answer choice (C) is an Extreme answer choice; unless an author is extreme, which this author is not, an Extreme answer choice will not be correct. The author thinks that the best way to fix this problem is to apply a new regional management strategy, making (D) Out of Scope.

5. C

The Roman numeral format and the verb state tell us that this is a Scattered Detail question. “Beneficial functions of the wetlands” are mentioned in the first part of paragraph 2. Relevant to this question are the details that “wetlands inhibit downstream flooding, prevent erosion along coasts and rivers, … and support scores of endangered birds, mammals, amphibians, plants, and fishes.” Statements I and III are listed in this paragraph, whereas renewable forestry options, Statement II, are never mentioned.

6. A

This is a masked Main Idea question; asking what the author is a proponent of is another way of asking what the author likes. The author’s goal in the passage is to describe problems with current wetland conservation efforts and to propose a new strategy. This prediction matches well with (A). In the final paragraph, the author discusses the flaws of the current permit system, so (B) can be eliminated as an Opposite. (C) can also be eliminated for similar reasons because the author is a proponent of the preservation of—not development of—the wetlands. Finally, the author states in the third paragraph that “government incentives to induce wetland conservation through private initiatives are limited and poorly funded,” so (D) can also be eliminated.

← Question and Answer Strategy All chapters Question Types II: Reasoning Within the →